I want to use a hand drawing (digitized) of the golden gate bridge, as
part of a logo and have searched but not found any info about
copyright of a structure. I found information about a public building
but not about a public structure. Thanks

<ikkyslash-mail@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:367bad2f-9a0e-4e60-a312-813f78ea3063@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
I don't really know for sure, I'm not a lawyer, etc. and maybe someone else
here does really know, but just guessing, I would say it is NOT copyrighted.
Unless maybe you were going to build a bridge exactly like it?

Your drawing, or photo, or painting, etc is your "interpretation" of it,
and YOUR work and would be copyright by you, if onyone.

Unless maybe someone owns the image rights to the Golden Gate Bridge? As a
logo, or something? In which case, if you went into google images and put
the name in, what came up would have a copyright or tm notice on it?

Interesting question.

I once asked this about using images of a scenic lake in my area a lot of
people have taken pictures of, and was told each person's picture was a tiny
bit different, even if exactly the same size and view and season, etc one
of the leaves on the trees might be slightly different. And the picture I
took would be mine and the one others too would be theirs. In that case you
can't copyright a lake (itself)

<ikkyslash-mail@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:367bad2f-9a0e-4e60-a312-813f78ea3063@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
I'd be very careful. I live in a town with a very high end horse racing
track which is/was owned by a public authority, the New York Racing
Association. Jenness Cortez is an artist who often depicted the track in her
paintings, lithos, t-shirts, postcards, etc. She was sued by NYRA and forced
to stop depicting the track in her work. NYRA owns the image of the track
and all rights to using that image to make money.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...C1A9639582 60

http://books.google.com/books?id=KIJ...kacrKvT8&hl=en

Fred Doyle wrote:
Excuse me for not following your links, but I'm of the opinion that
that's a private building. I do know that if you want to resell an image
of the Biltmore House, which is a privately owned structure, you need
permission (The image, logo, and name of Biltmore Estate are registered
trademarks and may not be used by outside parties without permission
from The Biltmore Company). But the Statue of Liberty, Mt. Rushmore,
Washington Monument, etc. should be copyrighted. Hell, we paid for them.

Just my 2¢.

Drew

I would have to agree with the Drewster ... a building or structure in
public *view* is not the same as a "public" building or structure ...

It all depends on *who* owns it. If it's owned by a private company or
organization (like your racetrack or Drew's Biltmore examples) then it and
all images, representations, etc, of that structure or building belong to
that private org. If it's a government owned structure (i.e., owned by *US*
the taxpayers) and we (meaning the artist in question) don't purport to
state that the government or agency has endorsed the artwork (or any
opinions), then it's fair game.

I think that especially applies to structures that reside in popular
culture -- i.e., the GG Bridge is an icon of the city of SF ... and that
makes it, IMHO, public domain.

--
Connie :-)
FREE patterns n' FREE eZine at my blog:
http://sewverycreative.blogspot.com


"Drew" <whoisthatmaskedman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:47eabcb0$0$6481$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
58260
t,+Saratoga+Race+course+painting+Jenness+Cortez&so urce=web&ots=6jd2ukK-P3&si
g=PGbpJs2IEqoaXZ2cULNkacrKvT8&hl=en

"SewVeryCreative" <sewcreativeAT@knologyDOT.net> wrote in message
news:2b8ba$47eabba3$18d6c25a$7082@KNOLOGY.NET...
I wonder if Trump Towers is copyright by Donalt Trump? (LOL)
He tried to register as a trademark the words "You're Fired!" at one time,
don't remember hearing if he was able to.
I've always thought (but don't know for sure) that a personal
interpretation of an image, that's different than the actual image, might be
okay to use. Like Disney, that deals inpictures, wouldn't allow anyone
copying their pictures (drawings) but, would someone drawing or
photographing a picture of a tree on someone's property need permission? If
there was nothing recognizable (like a person or their personal home)?

The GG bridge has been photographed, and used in images (even movies and
TV) so much, for so long, seems like it would be, as you say, public domain.

Good topic, though.

Carrie

Now I'm curious about this. I looked in searches and found out the Golden
Gate Bridge is part of the National Park Service, Dept of the Interior.

I see nothing in any of this that even hints at the idea of the image being
copyright/trademarked, etc. There is nothing I could find on any of the
sites about using the image, taking pictures (or drawing it)

I found many sites that have art/photos etc available for sale or use, and
these are copyright, but they are copyrighted by the person or company that
owns the actual image of them.

This could also expand to other buildings, the Empire State Building, for
example. Niagra Falls?

I am just guessing, but I can't find anything that indicates otherwise,
it would be the image made OF the building, landlark, etc. that would be
copyrighted or used as a trademark (that specific image, and medium used for
it, etc) and not the actual structure or building.

Though, this would also come to who decides the line in this? Is it okay
to use the image of The Grand Canyon, or The White House, etc but not okay
to use Trump Towers (which has the name Trump on it) or maybe an airplane,
showing the name of the airline on it?

Or, my neighbor's house or barn, or cows? Or an old tractor parked in a
field, I don't know who owns it or the land?

Did Andy Wahol get permission of pay Campbells to use their soup cans in
his paintings? Or was it his own interpretation (as art) of the can, and
not like he made his own soup, and called it Campbels and put the same
labels on?

One way to find out is to use it. If it's not clearly copyright or
trademarked. I doubt the Golden Gate Bridge has a C or TM sumbol posted on
it, and if it did, it would have to be in clear sight.




"SewVeryCreative" <sewcreativeAT@knologyDOT.net> wrote in message
news:2b8ba$47eabba3$18d6c25a$7082@KNOLOGY.NET...

On Mar 26, 3:59*pm, "Carrie" <starch...@kingcon.com> wrote:
It seems that I have caused a ruckus! I am going to have to e-mail the
Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District because I
thought that the Golden Gate Bridge was privately owed, but it was
built like in the 1920's so I don't know what is going on because it's
not a building since people don't live there. If it is a building than
no worries cause it was built before 1990 and blah blah. This logo is
for a non-profit organization and I don't want any trouble, so take a
look at the logo and tell me what you think.

<a href="http://dengineer.com/images/shpe_logo_c.pdf">http://
dengineer.com/images/shpe_logo_c.pdf</a>

Drew wrote:
The track is/was owned by the New York Racing Association (NYRA), a
public authority set up by the State of NY to run horse racing in NY,
much like the NY State Thruway Authority runs the NY Sate Thruway or the
NY dormitory Authority, at least as I understand it. The board of
directors is appointed by the state of NY.

Actually, just this year there was much debate about whether or not the
tracks and the land under the tracks was actually owned by NYRA since it
paid property tax on them, or by the state itself. The state claimed it
owned them as it set up NYRA to run racing. The Association claimed it
owned them and could sell them as assets since it paid property tax on
them and needed to sell some property since it was bankrupt.

They were ready to go to court to decide this issue when NYRA's contract
to run racing in NY ran out. In negotiating a new contract, NYRA
renounced all claims to ownership of the track in return for a
bankruptcy bailout, but NYRA still licenses all use of the track image.
Their claim, as I understand it, is that the image is a tangible asset
and they have the right to license the use of that asset.

Fred

--

<ikkyslash-mail@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:31732c25-8db4-4908-9a3c-e002029df26f@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
It seems that I have caused a ruckus! I am going to have to e-mail the
Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District because I
thought that the Golden Gate Bridge was privately owed, but it was
built like in the 1920's so I don't know what is going on because it's
not a building since people don't live there. If it is a building than
no worries cause it was built before 1990 and blah blah. This logo is
for a non-profit organization and I don't want any trouble, so take a
look at the logo and tell me what you think.

<a href="http://dengineer.com/images/shpe_logo_c.pdf">http://
dengineer.com/images/shpe_logo_c.pdf</a>

Oh, you've not caused a ruckus ... we're all friends and have been for quite
some time. That rivalry you might see between Drew & Fred is friendly and
pretty much reserved to football teams.

Cool logo ... I could see it as just being a suspension bridge (therefore, I
wouldn't think in violation of a copyright). Though if the company it's for
is in SF, I think it would automatically bring to mind the GGB! Soooo ... I
think it would be a matter of context and where in the world it's used.

Connie :-)
FREE patterns n' FREE eZine at my blog:
http://sewverycreative.blogspot.com

<ikkyslash-mail@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:31732c25-8db4-4908-9a3c-e002029df26f@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 26, 3:59 pm, "Carrie" <starch...@kingcon.com> wrote:
It seems that I have caused a ruckus! I am going to have to e-mail the
Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District because I
thought that the Golden Gate Bridge was privately owed, but it was
built like in the 1920's so I don't know what is going on because it's
not a building since people don't live there. If it is a building than
no worries cause it was built before 1990 and blah blah. This logo is
for a non-profit organization and I don't want any trouble, so take a
look at the logo and tell me what you think.

<a href="http://dengineer.com/images/shpe_logo_c.pdf">http://
dengineer.com/images/shpe_logo_c.pdf</a>


I think it was built in the 1930's (noticed in passing when looking around)
And it's under the National Park Service (they have a place to use to
contact them with quesitons on their website)

Anyway, it's just a very good/interesting question, I think. I take a lot
of photos, and don't try to sell them directly, but have used some and might
in the future, but I'm careful of taking pictures of someone's HOUSE. A barn
might be okay (there's also the idea of using an art program to put effects
on them- like you are going to use a drawing)

I asked about this on another discussion group (in general) and got
several answers

One, the woman's husband had looked into this. I mentioned finding pictures
for sale of the GG Bridge that said copyright (by the person who took them)

According to my husband who did a lot of research on this before he printed
a bunch of pictures of Carhenge and Mount Rushmore for magnets...you should
be able to use it. If it is your own drawing (or photo) and it is drawn (or
taken) from a public place, there should be no copyright infringement.
Exceptions are things like private property or buildings built after a
certain year (he can't remember the year) or people.

The photos you are looking at are copyrighted but the subject of the photo
shouldn't be. Whoever took the photo owns the PHOTO, but not the bridge.

AND

It would be perfectly fine for him/her to use a drawing of his/her own of a
public place/item....as long as there are no recognizeable people in it


Of course, it probably best to check and I'd want to know for sure, too.

I love the logo!

Actually, there are so many other bridges in the world, it's not even
clear which one it is in your picture (though it's probably in that area of
the country, and in a way like a logo FOR that area). It's an artists
rendition of a bridge similar to the style of the GGBridge. Just gives a
"hint" of it.I think you are clearly okay with it. Unless that particluar
drawing of it might be copyright or a registered TM somewhere and how would
you find that out?

Gosh, no, no ruckus at all. You should see this group when a full blown
ruckus erupts. Its been a while.

I think your logo is generic and abstracted enough that you can probably
get away with it no problem It can be seen as just a suspension bridge
and there area lots of them. OTOH, if you're worried, yeah it sounds
like you've got the right organization to check with.

Fred

"Carrie"
|
| It seems that I have caused a ruckus! I am going to have to e-mail the
| Golden Gate Bridge Highway and Transportation District because I
| thought that the Golden Gate Bridge was privately owed, but it was
| built like in the 1920's so I don't know what is going on because it's
| not a building since people don't live there. If it is a building than
| no worries cause it was built before 1990 and blah blah. This logo is
| for a non-profit organization and I don't want any trouble, so take a
| look at the logo and tell me what you think.
|
| <a href="http://dengineer.com/images/shpe_logo_c.pdf">http://
| dengineer.com/images/shpe_logo_c.pdf</a>
|
|
| I think it was built in the 1930's (noticed in passing when looking
around)
| And it's under the National Park Service (they have a place to use to
| contact them with quesitons on their website)
|
| Anyway, it's just a very good/interesting question, I think. I take a lot
| of photos, and don't try to sell them directly, but have used some and
might
| in the future, but I'm careful of taking pictures of someone's HOUSE. A
barn
| might be okay (there's also the idea of using an art program to put
effects
| on them- like you are going to use a drawing)
|
| I asked about this on another discussion group (in general) and got
| several answers
|
| One, the woman's husband had looked into this. I mentioned finding
pictures
| for sale of the GG Bridge that said copyright (by the person who took
them)
|
| According to my husband who did a lot of research on this before he
printed
| a bunch of pictures of Carhenge and Mount Rushmore for magnets...you
should
| be able to use it. If it is your own drawing (or photo) and it is drawn
(or
| taken) from a public place, there should be no copyright infringement.
| Exceptions are things like private property or buildings built after a
| certain year (he can't remember the year) or people.
|
| The photos you are looking at are copyrighted but the subject of the photo
| shouldn't be. Whoever took the photo owns the PHOTO, but not the bridge.
|
| AND
|
| It would be perfectly fine for him/her to use a drawing of his/her own of
a
| public place/item....as long as there are no recognizeable people in it
|
|
| Of course, it probably best to check and I'd want to know for sure, too.
|
| I love the logo!
|
| Actually, there are so many other bridges in the world, it's not even
| clear which one it is in your picture (though it's probably in that area
of
| the country, and in a way like a logo FOR that area). It's an artists
| rendition of a bridge similar to the style of the GGBridge. Just gives a
| "hint" of it.I think you are clearly okay with it. Unless that particular
| drawing of it might be copyright or a registered TM somewhere and how
would
| you find that out?
|

I doubt a copyright would still be valid under the laws in effect back in
the '30 A trademark might (unlikely) but there are mattes in a violation
of TM that are too complicated to cover here.

Check the archives of
misc.legal.moderated

and

the digital fine art group (digital-fineart@yahoogroups.com )

as I think this subject was beat to death on both groups sometime back.

On Mar 28, 5:31*am, "NotMe" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
I contacted Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District
and they requested I send in a PDF of the artwork and the associated
use
of the logo. I did and here is what they replied:

------------------------------------------------------------

We have no objection so long as no confusion results in the public,
which I doubt this use will create. Also, the words Golden Gate Bridge
are protected so they may not be used.
...
------------------------------------------------------------

So, everything looks good, now all I need is a typography expert.
Thanks

<ikkyslash-mail@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cbfb783b-706b-4be4-8477-d9c61830a120@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 28, 5:31 am, "NotMe" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

------------------------------------------------------------

We have no objection so long as no confusion results in the public,
which I doubt this use will create. Also, the words Golden Gate Bridge
are protected so they may not be used.
....
------------------------------------------------------------

All of which seems to imply that they believe they have some rights in
determining how the image of this public structure gets used.

Fred

Fred Doyle wrote:
I was thinking about this today - but where do laws like this end? Say I
design a particular dress and it sells. Someone takes a picture of it
being worn in public. They then sell that photo to an agency. I as a
designer sues the photographer for damages? After all, it's my design,
being worn by the subject. Will I in turn be sued, because the buttons I
used in the design I bought from a button shop, who owns the copyright
on those designs. Or maybe sued by the fabric maker, because the
particular pattern in their fabric is copyrighted. Can I sue the council
for filming my copyrighted materials on CCTV?

Blah. We live in a stupid world.


--


x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.NorthLeithMill.com
# remove NO SPAM to email
# this post (c) Miranda Thomas 2008
# explicitly no permission given to Forum4Designers
# to duplicate this post.

** Kammy has a new home! http://www.bitesizedjapan.com **

"SpaceGirl" <NOtheSpaceGirlSPAM@subhuman.net> wrote in message
news:66r68pF2ll2ijU1@mid.individual.net...

Well the irony is that the artist told NYRA to kiss off and moved on to
other subjects. She's doing just fine, thank you. NYRA, OTOH is tottering on
the edge of bankruptcy. Perhaps they were too worried about the wrong
things.

I don't know much about your laws, but in the US anybody can sue about
anything, pretty much. It often comes down to whoever has the biggest lawyer
wins because of the expense in defending yourself from the suit. Until that
system changes, we could easily have the situation you describe above.

Fred

"SpaceGirl" <NOtheSpaceGirlSPAM@subhuman.net> schreef in bericht
news:66r68pF2ll2ijU1@mid.individual.net...
No, it's all about the money.
And in some cases it makes sense.
But just imagine you take a picture of a store,
you see the store window, in the store window are goods ofcourse,
somebody designed those goods and packages. Kust imagine
you had to pay all of those designers because their design was in your
picture.;o)

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:29:26 -0400, "Carrie" <starchild@kingcon.com>
wrote:

I would say this...if you can see it from public view...it shouldn't
be copyrighted. Why? Well, saying you can copyright something like
that is basically the equivalent of telling people on the street that
they have to pay if they want to glance over and see your
building/structure/etc. If it can viewed by the public freely then it
becomes public domain, plain and simple. Yes, some uptight bastard
could still try and sue you, but unless the judge is an idiot he'll
see reason.

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog


Hatter Quotes
-------------
"You're only one of the best if you're striving to become one of the
best."

"I didn't make reality, Sunshine, I just verbally bitch slapped you
with it."

"I'm not a professional, I'm an artist."

"Your Usenet blinders are my best friend."

"Usenet Filters - Learn to shut yourself the fuck up!"

"Drugs killed Jesus you know...oh wait, no, that was the Jews, my
bad."

"There are clingy things in the grass...burrs 'n such...mmmm..."

"The more I learn the more I'm killing my idols."

"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity
of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"

"Freedom is only a concept, like race it's merely a social construct
that doesn't really exist outside of your ability to convince others
of its relevancy."

"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won't jump the gun and start
creamin yer panties before it's time to pop the champagne proper."

"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."

"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that
they're just born with a soul. *snicker*...yeah, like they're just
givin em out for free."

"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling...everywhere.
So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest,
to their merry little mess."

"There's a difference between 'bad' and 'so earth shatteringly
horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip
their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand
sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible
images burned into their tiny little minds'."

"How sad that you're such a poor judge of style that you can't even
properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."

"Those who record history are those who control history."

"I am the living embodiment of hell itself in all its tormentive rage,
endless suffering, unfathomable pain and unending horror...but you
don't get sent to me...I come for you."

"Ideally in a fight I'd want a BGM-109A with a W80 250 kiloton
tactical thermonuclear fusion based war head."

"Tell me, would you describe yourself more as a process or a
function?"

"Apparently this group has got the market cornered on stupid.
Intelligence is down 137 points across the board and the forecast
indicates an increase in Webtv users."

"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You're sure? Awww,
gee...that's too bad...for YOU!" `, )

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 10:00:02 +0100, SpaceGirl
<NOtheSpaceGirlSPAM@subhuman.net> wrote:

It's not a law and if they tried to actually enforce such an absurd
thing she would likely appeal to the supreme court where they would
unilaterally bitch slap the NYRA back to reality. Simply put...they
have no case. It's likely the first judge who made the ruling
(assuming there was ever a ruling) was simply some guy that the NYRA
had in their back pocket, which means the appeals courts would likely
rip it apart before it even got a chance to make it to the supreme
court.

--

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog


Hatter Quotes
-------------
"You're only one of the best if you're striving to become one of the
best."

"I didn't make reality, Sunshine, I just verbally bitch slapped you
with it."

"I'm not a professional, I'm an artist."

"Your Usenet blinders are my best friend."

"Usenet Filters - Learn to shut yourself the fuck up!"

"Drugs killed Jesus you know...oh wait, no, that was the Jews, my
bad."

"There are clingy things in the grass...burrs 'n such...mmmm..."

"The more I learn the more I'm killing my idols."

"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity
of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"

"Freedom is only a concept, like race it's merely a social construct
that doesn't really exist outside of your ability to convince others
of its relevancy."

"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won't jump the gun and start
creamin yer panties before it's time to pop the champagne proper."

"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."

"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that
they're just born with a soul. *snicker*...yeah, like they're just
givin em out for free."

"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling...everywhere.
So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest,
to their merry little mess."

"There's a difference between 'bad' and 'so earth shatteringly
horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip
their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand
sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible
images burned into their tiny little minds'."

"How sad that you're such a poor judge of style that you can't even
properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."

"Those who record history are those who control history."

"I am the living embodiment of hell itself in all its tormentive rage,
endless suffering, unfathomable pain and unending horror...but you
don't get sent to me...I come for you."

"Ideally in a fight I'd want a BGM-109A with a W80 250 kiloton
tactical thermonuclear fusion based war head."

"Tell me, would you describe yourself more as a process or a
function?"

"Apparently this group has got the market cornered on stupid.
Intelligence is down 137 points across the board and the forecast
indicates an increase in Webtv users."

"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You're sure? Awww,
gee...that's too bad...for YOU!" `, )